Any camera that you select must suit your photographic needs with the ergonomics of hands & eyes. While I / we here could rave about one camera vs another camera, only you can determine what suits your proposed photographic needs

To me, an eyepiece is 100% important ... the idea of always having to hold the camera at arms length to view the rear screen is totally unacceptable - so that's one of my considerations - you need to decide your options

To me, reducing noise from the sensor is important - and it's well known that squeezing more pixels onto a small sensor will increase noise ... so I go for less megapixels on the sensor - you need to decide what you want to do

Normally, what exactly sold as bridge cameras are bulky point and shoots which kind of look like they could be an SLR. Many people have Bridge cameras and are very satisfied with them. So if you are thinking about a Bridge camera it may be worth instead to look at a high-end lightweight instead. A bridge camera is a mediate between a single-lens reflex digital camera and a point and shoot camera. Bridge cameras usually lack some of the features of their single-lens choices such as a viewfinder and interchangeable lenses.

Very true, I have a L820 and in sunlight it's worthless because the LCD screen gets washed out. If you get a camera like this with no view finder look at getting a LCD viewfinder cover.

Normally, what [are] sold as bridge cameras are bulky point and shoots which kind of look like they could be an SLR.....

G'day Martin

-yes- while many of the superzoom cameras do look like traditional SLRs, may I invite you to not dismiss them as 'simple' point & shoot cameras [I know you did not say they were 'simple']

Most of today's dSLRs have 'auto' on the mode dial making them expensive point & shoot cameras which also have the traditional P-A-S-M options. Most of today's superzooms also have P-A-S-M as well, although the Aperture mode is limited when compared with a dSLR aperture range

The 'look' of the SLR is the pentaprism & optical viewfinder, whereas the look of the superzoom is the electronic fiewfinder. As one who has had film SLRs for 40+ years and now uses the EVF all the time, it amazes me that so many dSLR people still have not yet caught up with the beauty of the EVF ~ in my opinion it outshines the old clunker mirror box optical viewfinder many times over

As to:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinJone

..... Bridge cameras usually lack some of the features of their single-lens choices such as a viewfinder and interchangeable lenses.

um - if your primary lens is the equivalent of an 18mm to 450mm lens, why do you need interchangeable lenses? Surely a lens as versatile as an 18-450 would cover just about everything that 99% of the photographers on this forum would ever have or use regularly

And although you didn't mention it, the area that dSLRs -do- outshine superzoom cameras is a) speed of focussing and b) sensor size

with a) it does mean that I and others have difficulty with birds in flight sort of stuff [but how often does that come along], and b) how often do I do 20" x 30" prints whereby the larger sensor shows up the smaller sensor

Around my house the walls are full of 11" x 14" prints from the small-sensored superzooms I use & have used for the past decade. No-one who looks at them ever comments upon their supposed poor quality due to the small sensor.

Even the 30" wide panoramas get 'wow' comments ~ so the poor ole superzooms must be doing something right